immigrants and political participation

49 Pages·2007·0.2 MB·English

IMMIGRANTS AND POLITICAL
PARTICIPATION – BACKGROUND,
THEORY, AND EMPIRICAL
SUGGESTIONS

Author:
Göran Adamson
Dept. of Sociology
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
WC2A 2AE
UK
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed by the author/s
in this paper do not necessarily reflect the opinion or
position of the FRA. No mention of any authority,
organisation, company or individual shall imply any
approval as to their standing and capability on the part
of the FRA. This paper is provided as information guide
only, and in particular does not constitute legal advice.
2
1 Content

1 Content..............................................................................................................3
2 Introduction.......................................................................................................4
3 Historic notes....................................................................................................5
4 Theoretical definition of political participation....................................................8
5 Why do people vote? General theory of political participation – an overview..10
6 Why do immigrants vote? Political participation among immigrants –
an overview...................................................................................................19
7 Apathy, Adaptation, or Ethnic Mobilisation?....................................................26
8 Methodological problems related to political participation among immigrants.33
9 Political participation among immigrants – some empirical observations........36
10 Common denominators in official statistics in the Member states – two
suggestions....................................................................................................42
11 Recommended sources for data.....................................................................44
12 Literature and other sources...........................................................................47

3
2 Introduction

This paper will give a brief presentation of the issue of political
participation. In particular, it offers an overview of ‘political
participation’ in relation to immigrants.1

We shall start with some ‘Historic notes’, followed by a ‘Theoretical
definition of political participation’. Thereafter we will move to: ‘Why do
people vote? General theory of political participation – an overview’.
Next, we will move over to issues regarding ‘Why do immigrants vote?
Political participation among immigrants – an overview’. This paragraph
will furthermore be divided into two parts: ‘Explanations exclusively
referring to immigrants’ political participation’, followed by
‘Explanations jointly referring to natives and immigrants’. ‘Apathy,
Adaptation, or Ethnic Mobilisation?’ will thereafter raise some issues
within the important theme of ‘ethnicity’.

Then, we shall move over to ‘Methodological problems related to
political participation among immigrants’ – such as misleading data,
statistical gaps and false conclusions. ‘Political participation among
immigrants – some empirical observations’ addresses a few examples on
a local, practical level that has, arguably, managed to enhance
immigrants’ political participation. Subsequently, ‘Common denominator
in official statistics in the Member states – two suggestions’ will sum up
the above findings. Addressing a small number of WebPages,
‘Recommended sources for data’ will, finally, indicate where to look for
reliable information within this must urgent field of policy.

1 ‘Immigrant’ will here be defined ‘as a person who migrates to a country and then actually
resides there longer than a short period of time, i.e. for more than three months.’ Thomas
Hammar, (ed.), European immigration policy – A comparative study, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 11
The theory of ‘political participation’ is the subject of a range of competing
interpretations. It is the wish of the author that the following presentation does not appear
partial or overly subjectivist. Still, as pointed out by Max Weber, being objective does not
necessarily mean being impartial or neutral.
Also, within the area of an often heated debate, it is particularly desirable
to steer away from simplifications, and aim at presenting the material in an as balanced
fashion as possible.
4
3 Historic notes

In November 2000 the EU Commission held a meeting, and began a
debate on a common European immigration and integration policy. It was
needed, one felt, to recognise the importance of the issue, and start
discussing measures with which an increased participation among
immigrants within their ‘host’ societies – culturally, socially, and – last
but not least – politically, could be hoped for. The reasons for this policy
are evident. This foreign-origin population has legitimate needs,
demands, rights and duties with respect to (..) ‘host societies’. These
needs are legitimate because they have contributed much through their
labour, taxes, commercial services, participation in schools and
neighbourhoods, and by enriching urban cultural landscapes. However, in
every country of Europe immigrants and ethnic minorities have suffered
disproportionately from a variety of forms of exclusion. As a result, they
are often to be found among the worst social-economic circumstances of
all of Europe’s inhabitants.

The observation that political participation among immigrants within the
European Union has declined over the last few decades can hardly, as
such, cause attention. Shrinking voting figures is haunting the entire
Western Hemisphere. The striking thing is, however, the differences in
between the two groups. Without ignoring the problem as whole, the drop
in turnout among natives has still been fairly modest. In Sweden, as an
example, the decline of the entire population in local elections went down
from 90 per cent to 84 percent between 1976 and 1994.2 Over the same
period of time, political participation (i.e. voting) among immigrants has
decreased from 60 per cent to on average 40 per cent. In other words, the
alarming decline has been some 33 per cent among immigrants, as
opposed to a mere 7 per cent among native Swedes.3

These disquieting figures have moreover been accompanied by a drastic
increase in the number of non-EU immigrants within the community. In
2001 estimates of the number of non-EU nationals resident in EU

2 The difference in voter turnout decline between ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ would
arguably be slightly larger still, as various immigrant groups in the table is compared to ‘the
whole population’, where immigrants, one should expect, are included.
3 Magnus Dahlstedt, Politiskt deltagande och icke-deltagande; Om det politiska livets
etniska delning i dagens mångetniska Sverige (Political participation and non-participation:
About the division of political life in current Sweden.), Umeå: PfMI, 1999, p. 15
Figures from 1998 show that the declining trend among Swedish
immigrants continues, making the need for political measures more urgent, still. (Magnus
Dahlstedt, Politiskt deltagande och icke-deltagande; Om det politiska livets etniska delning
i dagens mångetniska Sverige, Umeå PfMI, 1999, p. 57)
5
countries ranged between 15 and 17.5 million, thus consisting, notably,
over 4 per cent of the EU population. The ‘foreign’ population was thus
equivalent to the figures of London and Paris together, outnumbering ten
of the fifteen EU member states.4 Furthermore, change of figures is, as
always, a matter of particular importance. Thus, one should observe that
‘in 1996, immigrants accounted for three-quarters of the population
growth of the EU, whose countries generally possess low birth rates. By
some estimates the EU will need to admit 50 to 70 million newcomers by
2050 to counteract the declining and ageing population.’5

What reasons could, then, help to explain the troublesome decline of
immigrants’ political participation over the last few decades? The brevity
of the present paper forces us to limit the description below to some
general suggestions.

An important difference in the patterns of immigration over the last few
decades is the very cause of the immigration in the first place. Whereas
the immigrant in the 1970s in most cases were not only expected but
desired, the present day immigrant is generally a refugee.6 Of course, this
very fact suffice in partly explaining a decreasing interest in political
participation. Anyone who has a job, a decent income, colleagues at work
and a political environment, is no doubt likely to show a greater political
interest, than the typical immigrant of the late 1990s; unemployed,
financially weak, and socially fragile.

This general change from pull-led ‘work-force’ immigration, over to that
of a ‘push’-led refugee nature entails other important aspects. Whereas
the immigrant not so long ago instantly achieved an occupation and
settled down for good, present day immigrant has less opportunities.
Thus, rather than moving towards, for instance, the Netherlands, current
day immigrants would more justifiably be described as emigrants from

4 Alasdair Rogers et al, ‘Introduction: Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in
European Cities’, in Alasdair Rogers, Jean Tillie (eds), Multicultural Policies and
Modes of Citizenship in European Cities, Burlington: Ashgate, 2001, p. 1
5 Alasdair Rogers, (et al), ‘Introduction: Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship
in European Cities’, in Alasdair Rogers, Jean Tillie (eds), Multicultural Policies and
Modes of Citizenship in European Cities, Burlington: Ashgate, 2001, p. 1
Whatever Jörg Haider might argue, the low birth rate in Austria and
elsewhere cannot simply be countered by adapting a policy which would be more
‘friendly towards children’ (‘Kinderfreundlichkeit’). The structural causes run deeper
than that. Indeed, in parts of Germany, the current state – or non-state – of reproduction
might lead to the closing of entire areas.
6 Due to current birth rates within the EU region, a reborn interest in a systematic ‘pull-led-
immigration might return sooner than expected. In Scandinavia these issues of the early 70s
are returning on the political agenda.
6
their native country. One may argue that the whole notion of immigration
fundamentally rests upon a view of migration that appropriately reflected
realities in the 1960s and the 1970s. At present, however, the whole
concept of immigration seriously distorts the whole picture. Given the
fact that the notion of work-force immigration lately have been forced to
leave the centre of the stage for the benefit of the expatriate, it might
seem puzzling that the notion of ‘the émigré’, and ‘emigration’ has not
gained a wider influence. Consequently, the fundamental status as exiles
of those new EU-citizens from the 1980s onwards naturally means that
they would be happy to return to their country of origin, if only the
situation changes.7 Obviously, one easily understands that only the
slightest uncertainty about one’s permanent future in the new
environment in combination with the scantiest option for positive changes
in one’s native country might have a distinctly negative impact upon the
likelihood of political participation, as well as other forms of interest in
the ‘host’ country, for that matter.8

The general recent changing composition of immigration from ‘work-force’
to ‘refugees’ also has a gender aspect. ‘While the number of single, male
immigrants has decreased, mainly because of the policy change that
occurred at the turning point (around 1974 when the pull-led immigration
slowly gave way to one of a push-led nature)9, the immigration of refugees
and the dependants of resident aliens have increased.’10 Thus, an increasing
amount of female and dependant immigrants might have contributed in a
general decrease of immigrant’s turnout.

The case of language is a rather peculiar phenomenon within the history of
immigrant’s political participation. Naturally, it cannot be over-looked. Still,
lately this matter-of-fact has often been acknowledged with a kind of

7 Having taught asylum seekers for a few years, I know that, for instance, a considerate
percentage of Iraqi refugees would be happy to return, if only democracy be safely
installed.
8 According to the sources of this survey, it is unclear whether originating from a
dictatorship per se would enhance political awareness, and, consequently, the likelihood for
political participation. True, this would indeed be correct with regards to certain activist
strata of asylum seekers in the EU. However, these immigrants would arguably constitute
an educated minority, predominantly to be found within students in major cities. For the
majority of asylum seekers from non-democracies, their origins would, as will be discussed
further below, rather hamper than foster political participation.
Therefore, the fact that dictatorships (along with the ‘refugee’) would be a
more common native country today as compared to the 70s would contribute to the general
decline in voting figures among immigrants within the European Union.
9 Turning point: a stage around 1974, when the systematic pull-led immigration was
gradually brought to a halt.
10 Thomas Hammar (ed.), European immigration policy- A comparative study, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984, p. 6
7
unease. The reason would, one might suspect, be its largely unfair
reputation as a means of dominance, exclusion, or even outright racism. On
the other hand, as being only one among a great variety of distinct cultural
aspects within any community, the urgent case of language must always be
treated with caution. If not, those above – and, worth reiterating, generally
exaggerated allegations – about an implicitly oppressive and imperialist
nature of host language, will indeed come true.

Still, language is important. A considerable part of immigrants into England
were not long ago of Irish origin. Similarly, unlike previous immigration
waves, ‘Many immigrants (in Spain) are (no longer) fluent in Spanish or
Catalan language.’11 Hence, it would not be far-fetched to assume that this
increasing language barrier has had a negative impact on immigrants´
prospect to integrate into the new community, including their likelihood to
participate in public elections.

As a final plausible cause for the shrinking political participation among
immigrants, the recent dismantling of the trade union – as a mere detail in a
wider picture of Neo-liberalism – might, as will be later returned to, add to
the picture.

4 Theoretical definition of political
participation

Alike any concept within the social sciences, the interpretation of
‘political participation’ is also an undecided matter. There are good
reasons for adopting the view upon ‘political participation’ as a joint
concept covering ‘voting’, ‘nomination’, ‘representation’ in the public’.
Judging from a number of key sources within the field, this also appears
to be the most common view. As argued by Sidney Verba in his classic
Participation and political equality – a seven nation comparison of 1978:
‘By political participation we refer to those legal acts by private citizens
that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of
governmental personnel and/or the actions that they take’.12

11 Ricard Morén-Alegret, ‘Tuning the Channels: Local Government Policies and
Immigrant’s Participation in Barcelona’, in Alasdair Rogers, Jean Tillie (eds),
Multicultural Policies and Modes of Citizenship in European Cities, Ashgate, Burlington
USA, 2001, p. 82
12 Sidney Verba, Participation and Political Equality, a seven nation comparison,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 46
The definition of ‘political participation’ as suggested by Margaret
Conway: ‘those activities of citizens that attempt to influence the structure of government,
8
However, others argue that confining ‘political participation’ within these
limits excludes a wide variety of activities that certainly must be seen as
political participation. ‘Current research, Daiva K. Stasiulis maintains,
has seriously limited the understanding of minority politics by adopting a
definition of political participation that is confined to electoral politics
and the official politics of the state.13 Some even argue that the
participating in political marches, Green Peace activism, hunger strikes,
and the printing of ideological journals expresses an incomparably starker
‘political participation’ than ‘the easier act of voting’14

Still, Stasiulis’ perception of a ‘current research’ that regrettably ignores
a wide variety of ‘political participation’ appears overly pessimistic. As a
matter of fact, the ‘classic’ definition of ‘political participation’, as laid
forward by Sidney Verba and others, is at present the subject of an
increasing amount of critique. Among politicians and academics, the
concept of ‘ethnicity’ – i.e. mainly focussing the needs of one’s own
ethnic group – has meant a serious blow to citizenship, and,
consequently, to the idea of ‘political participation’ as defined above.
Generally, too, lately the very idea of ‘political participation’ within a
parliamentary system has been the subject of growing critique by
protagonists of direct democracy, stemming, notably, not only from the
populist fringes of democracy, but also, worth stressing, from its decent
waters.

Thus, the notion of ‘political participation’ seems to have gone through a
slight conceptual change; from a rather unequivocal notion focused
around the ballot and the act of voting towards a somewhat more complex
notion, where the rather ‘exclusive’ definition above omits vital elements
of current day political participation.15

the selection of government authorities, or the policies of government’, is but one of many
surprisingly reminiscent of Verba´s definition above, suggesting somewhat of a conceptual
consensus. (Margaret M. Conway, Political participation in the United States, Washington:
CQ Press, 1985, p. 2)
13 http://canada.metropolis.net/events/civic/dstasiulis_e.html, Daiva K., Stasiulis,
Participation by Immigrants, Ethnocultural/visible Minorities in the Canadian Political
Process, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University
14 Sidney Verba, Participation and Political Equality, a seven nation comparison,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 256
15 The undecided connection in between voting figures and political interest offers another
problem associated with the traditional notion of ‘political participation’. For decades,
Austrian voting figures caused envy among foreign observers. However, the Kafkaesque
nature of Austrian politics was revealed by a ‘combination of high voting figures and
political apathy.’ Göran Adamson, ‘Austrian Corporatism – an overview’, in The sudden
post-86 rise of the Austrian Freedom Party, the story of a democratic failure, unpublished
manuscript, p. 88
9
One should mention that any purported definition of ‘political
participation’ rests heavily upon one or another ideological foundation. A
defence of, for instance, the ‘traditional’ model of political participation
is generally being laid forward by parties within the non-social
democratic sphere. Citizens should be trusted to vote, and the Parliament
should be trusted to function. In contrast, demanding the inclusion within
the sphere of ‘political participation’ of non-parliamentary action such as
strikes and demonstrations signifies, generally, the opposite, socialist
camp, where these actions might seem worthy of pursuing.

Despite these various definitions, ‘political participation’ will, in the
following presentation, merely signify the act of voting and parliamentary
participation.

5 Why do people vote? General theory of
political participation – an overview

Moving away from the abstract debate concerning the inner nature of
political participation, we shall now turn over to political practicalities,
and ask, Why do people vote? And why don’t they?

Before sketching some factors at present perceived as important, let us
first indicate a recent conceptual change. Similarly as above, where the
abstract concept of ‘political participation’ over the last decades has
broadened somewhat, the general explanation of the act of voting has also
been the subject of slightly altered interpretations. One central line of
conceptual transformation leads, briefly speaking, from psychology to
structure, or, in other words, from the individual to the group.

A few decades back ‘political participation’ was frequently associated
with individual convictions and motivations. Sidney Verba stresses the
fact that ‘individual motivation’ to political participation does not
‘involve preferences for politics beneficial to some group of which one is
a member.’16 Whereas politics within the EU and the western community
at present increasingly is being influenced by pressure groups, lobbies,

Indeed, as pointed out by Sidney Verba, shifting focus from the mere act of voting to
contacting a local politician on a personal matter, the Netherlands would be on top. Austria,
on the other hand, dropped considerably, positioning itself roughly on par with India.
(Sidney Verba, Participation and Political Equality, a seven nation comparison,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 61)
16 Sidney Verba, Participation and Political Equality, a seven nation comparison,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 11
10